So, the Microsoft announcement - taking place as I write this, 01:45 in my timezone - turns out to be a bigger deal than expected. Microsoft just announced it's going full-on hardware - the company announced a new tablet called 'Surface', and boy, is this thing something to behold. Microsoft's hardware partners? They're not happy right now. Update: Here's Microsoft's official Surface site. I believe someone coined the phrase 'sexy as a succubus' in the comments about Vizio? Stealin' it! Update II: They aren't just taking the iPad head-on - this is a straight-up MacBook Air competitor.

Are you saying that they're not requiring that secure boot can not be disabled on arm devices running windows 8? Or are you saying that their requirement has nothing to do with stifling competition and is instead because...ehm...uh....yeah, why exactly?
Why does MS try so hard to prevent me from using a device I own to run what I want?

Windows 8 CAN'T be really used as any kind of effective leverage, because it presents no competitive advantage to Windows RT.

You can't just reply "Yeah, but what if" to something which is demonstrably impossible. The architectures are different, meaning everything from applications to drivers are incompatible.

Windows RT doesn't have the clout that Windows has. So Microsoft can't really use their success on the Desktop to force success in the ARM world.

Microsoft has every right to dictate the terms of using their software (SecureBoot forced on ARM), and you're free as a consumer to not use it. Its not a monopolistic abuse, its how they chose to do business.

When Apple locks their bootloaders its not a monopolistic abuse, its the walled garden they choose to let you play in for $499. Don't like it, don't play.

Microsoft has every right to dictate the terms of using their software (SecureBoot forced on ARM)

That's not dictating my use of their software (which I have no problem with), it is dictating the terms of how I can use *my* hardware, hardware that is quite likely not manufactured or sold by Microsoft.

Note that I don't have a problem with this on Surface. It's MS product (both hardware and software) and they can do what they want with that. The problem is that this restriction is imposed on generic non-MS hardware.

When Apple locks their bootloaders its not a monopolistic abuse

That's en entirely different case because it is both Apple's hardware and software.

Edit: Microsoft really has no right telling me how to use their software either. As long as it is not violating copyrights it is NONE of their business. I believe this is commonly known as post-sale restrictions and something that is actually not legal.

Nice job dodging the question.
Again, what's the reason for locking out everyone else if not to stifle competition? Why would I not be "allowed" to buy an ARM device running Windows from, say, Acer and install something else on it?